Cleared after death: Paresh never lived to see verdict

Sixteen years ago, over Tk 9.4 million was stolen from the corporate branch of Janata Bank in Faridpur. In the criminal case filed over the theft, the bank’s then security guard, Paresh Chandra Das, was acquitted by the High Court last year. Tragically, however, he had already died before the court finally cleared his name.

In a related civil suit filed by Janata Bank authorities to recover the money, the High Court on 3 February dismissed the bank’s first appeal and ordered it to pay Tk 50,000 in compensatory costs for the harassment and suffering inflicted on the defendants—Paresh’s family. The court directed that the entire amount be paid to his surviving family members.

Court records show that on the night of 19 February 2010, Tk 9,419,590 was stolen from the vault of Janata Bank’s Faridpur Corporate Branch. Paresh was 50 years old at the time and was working as a security guard. The following day, the branch manager filed a case with Kotwali police station in Faridpur. Paresh was arrested in connection with the theft but was later released on bail.

While the criminal proceedings were still ongoing, Janata Bank authorities filed a money suit on 4 August 2013 before the First Joint District Judge’s Court in Faridpur, seeking recovery of the stolen funds. Three years later, on 29 June 2016, the court dismissed the suit and ordered the bank to pay Tk 10,000 in costs.

Janata Bank challenged that ruling in the High Court in 2016 by filing an appeal (first appeal). On 3 February this year, a High Court bench comprising Justice Md Iqbal Kabir and Justice Md Riaz Uddin Khan dismissed the appeal.

The High Court upheld the lower court’s order requiring the bank to pay Tk 10,000 in costs and further directed it to pay an additional Tk 50,000 as compensatory costs.

In its judgment, the High Court observed that the case involved the theft of more than Tk 9.4 million, yet police had submitted charges against only two individuals, including Paresh, without conducting any meaningful investigation into how the vault had actually been opened.

The court noted that investigators had failed to determine the method by which the vault was accessed. It described this failure as deeply unfortunate, stating that despite the theft of a substantial amount of money, both the prosecution and the investigating agency had “utterly failed” to bring the real perpetrators to justice.

The judgment further stated that the authorities had singled out Paresh while failing to properly investigate others who might have been involved, particularly those who had custody of the vault keys and officials who re-entered the bank after returning from a picnic on the day of the incident.

According to the court, this raised a reasonable suspicion that efforts had been made to shield the actual offenders.

The High Court went on to observe that the appeal appeared to have been pursued solely to portray Paresh as the culprit while ignoring the potential involvement of others. Such conduct, it said, amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the appeal (filed by the Janata Bank authorities) was dismissed with costs.

Advocate Chanchal Kumar Biswas, who represented Paresh’s family, told Prothom Alo on Monday that the High Court had ordered Janata Bank to pay a total of Tk 60,000 to the family as compensation for the harassment and suffering they endured.

He said the court had also observed that a civil suit was not the appropriate legal mechanism for recovering money stolen in a theft or robbery. The judgment described the bank’s claim as fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable.

Chanchal Kumar Biswas further said that the court said those who had custody of the vault keys had neither been accused in the criminal proceedings nor included as parties in the civil suit. Instead, a lone security guard had been targeted, apparently to obscure the true circumstances of the theft. A fresh investigation should be conducted into those actually responsible for the disappearance of the money.

Appearing for Janata Bank were advocates Md Arif Billah and Md Jamil Anwar. Speaking to Prothom Alo on Monday, Arif Billah said the bank had not yet received a certified copy of the full judgment and would decide on its next course of action after reviewing the ruling with the bank authorities.

In the criminal case, a magistrate’s court in Faridpur convicted Paresh on 2 February 2020 and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.

According to court documents, Paresh had given a statement before a magistrate on 25 February 2010. In it, he said he had been asleep inside the bank on the night of the incident when several men entered, held a knife to his throat and ordered him to remain silent.

He identified two individuals, Topu and Jahid, as being among the intruders. According to Paresh, they frequently loitered outside the bank and had often treated him to tea and snacks while claiming they intended to open a bank account.

Paresh stated that on the night of the theft they gave him Tk 5,000, and requested police to recover the money from his wife, which the law enforcement did.

Court records, however, show that Jahid’s name did not appear in the charge sheet eventually submitted by police. Topu was acquitted by the magistrate’s court.

Following his conviction, Paresh appealed to the sessions court. On 25 September 2023, the Faridpur Sessions Court reduced his sentence from four years to two years.

Paresh subsequently filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court. After issuing a rule and hearing the matter in full, the High Court delivered its judgment on 28 January 2025.

The court set aside both the conviction and sentence imposed by the sessions court, effectively exonerating him of all charges.

Yet Paresh never lived to hear that verdict. He had died a year earlier, on 26 January 2024.

Following his death, his wife Rita Rani Das, son Pranab Kumar Das and daughter Lipi Rani Das were substituted as respondents in the first appeal, filed by the Janata Bank, on 26 May 2025.

Pranab Kumar Das said the family had endured 16 years of legal battles, harassment and social humiliation.

“Throughout this legal struggle, my father and our family suffered enormously,” he told Prothom Alo. “We were stigmatised socially as well. My father died while the legal proceedings were still ongoing. The real offenders remain beyond the reach of justice.”

“My father was ultimately proven innocent. But he never got the chance to see the verdict that cleared his name. That is what hurts us the most.”

Pranab added that his father had served nearly two decades as a security guard before the incident occurred.

“Now that he has been proven innocent, we hope the bank authorities will ensure that our family receives all the retirement and service benefits that were due to him,” he said.